Changing paradigms in marine and coastal conservation: A case study of clam gardens in the Southern Gulf Islands, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Marine conservation is a global challenge and marine protected areas (MPAs) are one means of addressing this challenge. Progress in MPA designation is slow, partially due to objections to MPA establishment by local stakeholders and Indigenous peoples. This article suggests that a values‐based paradigm to conservation that emphasizes active management and further engagement of First Nations, as rights‐holders, should be given more emphasis. The re‐introduction of clam gardens into Gulf Islands National Park Reserve (GINPR) is used as an example of this approach. Clam gardens were constructed by First Nations on the Pacific Coast to augment the productivity of clam growth. Several former clam gardens are within GINPR. The primary mandate of national parks is to protect ecological integrity, potentially forbidding the re‐introduction of clam gardens. The literature suggests that there would be minimal ecological impacts at the park level from the re‐introduction of clam gardens. There could also be significant advantages both for conservation and First Nations communities. With a greater degree of decision‐making input and the opportunity to re‐introduce cultural practices, a values‐based paradigm may contribute to the acceptability of coastal PAs and promote the expansion of conservation values in the landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".